mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Europe's Immigration Crisis
Of Nationalists and Cosmopolitans
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • LarryD

    The Progressive elites on both sides of the Atlantic are too arrogant to ever admit to making a mistake. Consequently, they can never back off, never course correct. This are is just one more example.

    The other explanation is that destroying the previously existing societies and cultures of the West is exactly their objective. Now days this falls under the category of genocide. So, are they so arrogant as to be stupid, or are they genocidal?

    • a6z

      Technically, not genocide. Western culture is not a race. Destroying it would be an unspeakable crime and involve the death of at least many tens of millions, but “genocide” is not the name of that crime.

      They are not stupid people, though ideology tends to make you act stupid. They are undoubtedly in denial about the fall of civilization–which is very slow, and easy to be in denial about. Until it isn’t. It helps that they are personally safe. Until they aren’t.

      • LarryD

        Note, I said “societies and cultures of the West”. And read the Anti-genocide treaty. You are not arguing to the international law definition of “genocide”, which, for better or worse, extends beyond race.

        • a6z

          The word genocide is the combination of the Greek word “geno” (meaning tribe or race) and “caedere” (the Latin word for to kill).

          You want to get technical? The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Article II) says “national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Western civ. is none of the above.

          O, and Larry? Don’t try to punch above your weight class.

  • qet

    This is all very nice, but really I think we need to be a bit more thoughtful in the use of our terms. Take “anti-immigrant,” for example. We hear that a lot. What, exactly, does it mean? As far as I can tell, its popular political meaning is this: anyone who suggests fewer immigrants be let into one’s country, no matter what reason they give, is automatically “anti-immigrant.” So the “debate” never even gets started because there can be no debating someone who is “anti-immigrant,” right? Another is xenophobia. This is a favorite because it has overtones of erudition, being a Greek word and all. So if one is concerned about hundred of thousands, millions or tens of millions of immigrants from vastly different cultures entering one’s country, one therefore fears strangers?

    And it may be that the Czechs are reacting “disproportionately” to the number of actual immigrants presently in their country because, you know, what with CNN and the Internet and all, maybe they have seen the situation in Calais, on Kos, etc. (and maybe even the USA) and are trying to prevent from even happening there what we have allowed to happen here: a fait accompli where we are told, even by reputable outlets like TAI and The Federalist, that the idea of removing any of the tens of millions of illegal immigrants already here, with more streaming in every day, is both unfeasible and monstrous, as is the idea of doing anything that would actually prevent them from getting in in the first place. So apparently preventing immigrants from coming here illegally, and/or deporting them once here, are both considered outside of any “rational policy debate” we are urged to have. Anyone suggesting either of those, no matter in what tone or style of rhetoric, is “hysterical,” and “anti-immigrant” and “racist” and “nativist” and all the rest.
    If you ask me, the Czechs are right to be acting now as they are.

    • a6z

      “If you ask me, the Czechs are right to be acting now as they are.”

      No one did. It’s fine that you answer anyway, but it’s best to be reasonably brief.

    • CapitalistRoader

      Very well put. And people wonder how that moron Trump can be leading not only all the other Republicans in the polls but Hillary as well. Well, he may be a moron on most subjects but on the issue of illegal immigration he obviously speaks for the majority of Americans. Much to the consternation of the coastal clericy.

      • mdmusterstone

        Ok, immigration to an extent but mostly because Trump can’t
        be bullied. People are fed up with
        social bullies. How about that guy at
        NASA and his shirt or the scientist making a joke about women in the laboratory
        or our platoon of runners for president who start out every speech with
        something like, “My fellow Americans I’d like to make the following list
        of apologies since my last list of apologies.”

        Trump has done the country a favor. He’s shown that, as with all bullies, they
        back off when you hit back twice as hard.
        More, and as importantly, Trump has shown that a populist with no real policies
        has a big draw, know that we are lucky that it is The Donald bringing this to
        light rather than someone slick with a malicious hidden agenda. Some political acts have to be gotten
        together and next pres election isn’t too soon to do it.

  • Anthony

    “Nationalism is one specific form of identity politics that found its first major expression in the French Revolution. It is based on the view that political boundaries of the state ought to correspond to a cultural boundary, one defined primarily by shared language and culture.” A corresponding fact of nationalism is that it is often build on principles that include certain people and exclude others. Moreover, changing economic circumstances or economic stagnation bear on people’s attitudes vis-a-vis migrant crisis. Economic growth affects intensity of attitudes in democratic process – how intensely people care about what they favor or oppose.

    Immigration (migrant crisis), 21st century kind, threatens to challenge old models of nation/state in midst of global economic slowdown; a very serious questions given tensions alluded to in piece remains whether such models designed in opposition to other groups can adapt to worldwide migrant issue. Or put another way, can nationalism expand its circle of moral obligation beyond its citizens?

    • a6z

      Say it simple, Anthony. Don’t confuse yourself or others.

      Nationalism is allegiance to a nation. In the European understanding, a nation is a people defined by descent, language, Christianity (its sect), and a homeland. By its terms, that includes some people and excludes others. Even to ask the question is odd.

      Nationalism might be balanced against other values, but cannot “expand its circle of moral obligation beyond its [nationals]” and still be nationalism.

      By the way, it is far from obvious with respect to migrants that nationalism *should* be balanced against other values. If you think so, then maybe you should say why. Link to your own blog, if you like.

      • Tom

        That particular Anthony thrives on being confusing.

        • Anthony

          Tom, only to those pretending and sparse of thought.

          • Tom

            One should distinguish among bigots, if for no other reason than to know how to refute each kind.

          • Anthony

            That may be how you choose to see it; I think otherwise. Constancy of thought matters (why be moral) while recognizing human inconsistencies.

          • mdmusterstone

            @ Anthony… “… and any one may cause tension with
            another.” Personal tension meaning upset or annoyed or the most over used “devastated”
            I presume. What is the source of these
            feelings: Self! Victor Frankle said,
            quite rightly, that no matter what others do to you or what your situation
            there is one freedom that can’t be taken away from you and that is the freedom
            to choose your own attitude.

            So the next time someone says, “You offended me,”
            in truth they should say, “I choose to be offended,” where upon anyone might or should respond,
            “And I don’t choose to give a damn”.
            But then victimhood wouldn’t *listen* any longer and that’s that only
            trump (small ‘t’) most of these people have.

          • Anthony

            One way of looking at it.

        • a6z

          I’m pretty sure he’s doing his best.

          • Anthony

            Always consider worldwide web audience and never presume you are (or your interests) central/focus of internet commentary. Virtual anonymity encourages… And thanks again.

      • Anthony

        Simply, the above attempts to tie into or reference theme of short essay. I shorthand specifics given WRM’s regular readership. That is, national identity is often built around principles of ethnicity, race, religion, language, et al (some of which you infer). That said, whether migrants are expanded into national identities is beyond scope of essay’s thrust. My intention, and it remains, is to proffer a different perspective to 21st century demographic event. TAI readers generally are quite familiar with nationalism and its specific forms of identity politics – infrequently confused. Thanks.

        • a6z

          Okay. Still ‘way too many words per idea, but I get the gist.

          You can’t “proffer a different perspective” a word into meaning its opposite. I recommend you don’t even try. You can say what you want without doing so.

          You want nationalists to consider taking in more migrants, right? Isn’t that easier to say straight out?

          (BTW, I listed, I didn’t imply. And if I had implied, it would have been you who inferred.)

          • Anthony

            Real simple, if I wanted to say what you inferred (nee nationalist)then I would have. You can’t proffer on an informal medium and that’s your choice (and if you listed and did not imply perhaps I ought to weigh casual comments more carefully, my apology).

          • a6z

            No apology necessary. Just make it easy on both of us. Simple words, simple sentences.

          • Anthony

            Only for simple people but got it!

          • a6z

            On the contrary. Unnecessary complexity is a trap. The most cunning intelligences use simple sentences.

          • Anthony

            Point of view but I’m done here, thanks.

  • mdmusterstone

    Here’s two words: legitimacy and control. The leaders, the elite opinion setters, their
    actions are legitimate only in so far as they reflect the will of the people who
    built, and day by day, hand by hand maintain
    and expand a society for generally accepted goals, goals within the control of
    the people who will bear the burden of the decisions made.

    The people have a voice, listened to or ignored by the
    “I just want to make everything fair for everyone group”, in the
    policies for handling of immigrants and refugees. Their ideas, policies, may be generous or
    niggardly (am I still allowed to use that word?) but their decision is the most
    legitimate in the society. All else is editorial.

    • a6z

      “The leaders, the elite opinion setters, their actions are legitimate only in so far as they reflect the will of the people who built, and day by day, hand by hand maintain and expand a society for generally accepted goals, goals within the control of the people who will bear the burden of the decisions made.”

      Cute. You have taken the principle of consent of the governed and padded it with extra qualifiers, apparently not realizing that you have accidentally made it of negligible application. Just cut the extra words.

      BTW, in Europe the principle of consent of the governed as the sole source of legitimacy was never fully embraced, and is now being rejected wholesale as any measure of legitimacy. And in the rest of the world, it was never even partially recognized and is now being dramatically challenged. Just so you know.

      • Tom

        “Cute. You have taken the principle of consent of the governed and padded it with extra qualifiers, apparently not realizing that you have accidentally made it of negligible application. Just cut the extra words.”
        Not quite. The fact is that all governments, push come to shove, rule by the consent of the governed–if enough of the governed decide that they do not consent, there is soon to be a new government.

        • CapitalistRoader

          Absolutely. Just look at Cuba. Or North Korea.

        • a6z

          I take it you are not posting from Cuba, Iran, Tibet, mainland China, or North Korea.

          • Tom

            Those peoples have not yet decided that they would rather be dead than live under their present government.
            I do not say that to condemn them, but at its basis, the “consent of the governed” is “we would rather you rule us than us be dead.”

  • circleglider

    A nice companion to Ben Domenech’s Are Republicans for Freedom or White Identity Politics?

    At least both agree that bipartisan technocratic Progressive elites are the ones at fault. Too bad we don’t live in a federal republic anymore…

  • mdmusterstone

    @ get, while we’re asking the so called Native Americans
    questions another good one might be about their genocidal murder of a Caucasoid
    group, one of which is known as Kennewick Man.
    One might also think to ask about their
    efforts to steal critical portions of these remains as well as other remains
    found over the years. A question? How about asking if the remains are being
    hidden because it would damage the NA narrative of victimhood.

    • JR

      Life was, is, and will continue to be a full contact sport. Wear a cup.

    • a6z

      It is unlikely that any pre-Columbian American Indian tribe lived in a place that it, or its ancestors, had not taken from some other American Indian tribe. We don’t know their names and dates because they were illiterate and therefore prehistoric–with a few exceptions, like the Aztecs, who ate their conquered peoples.

      We have no moral lessons to learn from them about taking land. Neither they nor the invading colonists had any doubt that land belonged to whoever could take and hold it.

      Notions of property–that is, “rightful” as opposed to forceful holding of land–came later. And they never came at all to the American Indians, who *still* hold their reserved lands as commonses governed by the tribes’ bosses.

  • AnthonyLook

    All this talk by racist Republicans about anchors, birth right, immigration… is nothing more than White Power interests trying to change the rules to stack the deck in their favor; they aren’t fooling anyone. This has nothing to do with any other motivation.

    • Dale Fayda

      All this talk by racist, criminal Democrats poverty pimps about “white privilege”, “black lives matter”, “punishing your enemies…”, “undocumented immigrants” is nothing more than a blatant anti-white power play by progressives, an attempt to fundamentally alter the electorate of this country in their favor by importing swarms of the lowest dregs of the Third World. There isn’t even a pretense any more of hiding the Democrats’ hatred for white America and for the Judeo – Christian foundations of this nation. The Democrat party will gladly build its throne of power on the ruins of this country, even if it buys them just a few years of absolute control – they aren’t fooling anyone. This has nothing to do with any other motivation.

      There, fixed it for you…

      • AnthonyLook

        Spoken like a true racist. Thank you for proving my point.

        • Dale Fayda

          Ouch, that hurt… Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

          Isn’t there a black race riot you need to get ready for? Flash mobbing some defenseless white people tomorrow, likely? Maybe you’re smuggling some Honduran illiterates across the border tonight? No? Or perhaps tonight’s agenda is to desecrate a church with some of your fellow lesbians? Watching some Planned Parenthood video as a nightcap?

          I know that as a progressive you are FAR too busy “preaching knowledge, son” to waste your emotional capital on the likes of me, aren’t you?

          • AnthonyLook

            Never stop dishing your smack. Without racists like you, we can’t win. You are one of those gifts that keeps on giving. Keep enlightening American voters with your delicious gems. Never stop, at least until election day. It’s people like you that insure our victory. Thanks again.

          • Dale Fayda

            Ah, yes… At the feet of the our liberal “better” once again. Oh, enlightened one, please, please remind us about the inevitable victory of progressivism once more.

            Every time an illegal alien, deported multiple times, randomly shoots an American woman – you’ll be there. Every time a feral mob of black failures burns down an American city – you’ll be there. Every time a living, breathing baby is butchered by the Planned Parenthood ghouls for his body parts – you’ll be there. Every time a train of illegal alien drug mules carries half a ton of cocaine across the US border – you’ll be there. As the BASE of the Democrat party continues to fill this nation’s prisons, housing projects and welfare offices – you’ll be there. Every time a formerly solid middle-class down in the US is turned into a gang-infested crap hole by illegal alien scum over whom Democrat party slobbers – you’ll be there. Every time an Islamist goes on a shooting spree in this country – you’ll be there.

            You’re a progressive saint – that indeed is what you are! Thank God that your ilk is here to spread the goodness and light of progressivism among us heathens!

          • AnthonyLook

            Your cut and paste is really boring. Update you diatribe, we need to win. You’re using 2010 material.

          • Dale Fayda

            2010 material? Hardly! All taken from this year’s headlines, dingus.

            And you can’t refute a single point, lib.

            Truly, liberalism is a mental disorder.

        • MrJest

          You want to see a racist, AnthonyLook??

          Check out that shiny piece of glass in your bathroom – it’s called a mirror.

          • AnthonyLook

            Seriously, PROJECTION—- since when has that worked for Republicans. Really, tell me when has it worked, do you have one example.
            As if the Democratic party has a racist problem image. Sorry MrJester, but the only court clown would be you for using 2010 failed comeback comments. Republicans have worked very hard to earn their racist image. Be proud, this denial thing with racism just makes you Republicans look like wimps. Take a lesson from Trumps crowd that was chanting—-“White Power”. Now there are some proud Republican racists. Get some cajones and be true to your party and quit being a Pusee.

          • MrJest

            Yes; you are projecting – that’s my point. As a racist, you assume everyone else is racist… except we’re not.

            We are, actually, Americans, unlike you. We are better human beings, more intelligent, and definitely more moral. After all, we ended slavery, and passed civil rights legislation your type fought tooth-and-nail to oppose, even going so far as to drum up Democrats from far away and bus them in to beat up and fire-hose peaceful black people marching for the right to vote without ridiculous obstructions, or just eat in peace in a diner.

            Just admit your monstrous, anti-freedom, anti-American totalitarian Statist evil; grow some cajones and admit that you will be the first to wear the brown shirts and round up American patriots to toss them in the concentration camps you so desperately love.

            We who are better than you will ALWAYS fight your totalitarian Statism, ALWAYS. Death to Marxism, Death to Socialism, Death to Statism.

            Life and Love to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!!!

          • AnthonyLook

            Not only are you Republicans (and your worthless parents that taught you racism) racists, but; your are also sexists and bigots. You are self righteous scandal lie loving fascist fake christians; who are not only going to lose the presidential election with this batch of Clown Car Two idiots, you’re also going to lose the Senate.

          • MrJest

            Why, oh why do you continue to fight on the side of evil? Would you rather not be a Free Human rather than a controlled “ant” in a giant machine of death and destruction that is the natural end point of your collectivist beliefs, as we have seen time and time and time again? It ALWAYS fails… always. And it’s pathetic each and every time. When will you own up to your own flawed humanity, accept and work within those flaws, and struggle to build rather than destroy, and love your fellow American rather than try to destroy us?

            Why do you wallow in racism, “victim-hood”, and failure? Why do you teach your children to fail, to give up, to lose? Why, oh why won’t you accept your birthright, to be a part of the greatest nation Earth has ever created, and join in with the rest of us to create, to build? To lift ALL peoples up on the glorious force of Individualism, Freedom, and Charity, Love, and Hope? Why do you seek and advocate evil and destruction???

            You are born into the most prosperous, peaceful time ever seen before on this planet. Yet you seek to go backwards, to create more division, more racism, more sexism, more “victims” to wallow in the trough of despair. Why? Why do you and those like you DO this? Don’t you understand you are only destroying yourselves, my fellow Americans?

            I weep for you… I really do.

  • jeburke

    Is it really “hysteria” or “xenophobia” for nations of 5 or 10 million people to resist the very possible oveewhelming of their 1000-year-old cultures by an endless wave of African and Asian “migrants?”

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “There are ugly sentiments expressed in the article”

    What is UGLY is the blatant theft of a citizen’s national inheritance by the Political Elites, all while telling the citizenry that the loss of jobs, lower pay, over tasked government services, and unassimilated aliens is good for them. It is clear the illegal and legal immigrants are escaping miserable, backward, inferior cultured countries in the hopes of stealing a share of the national inheritance of superior countries. They don’t want to stop in Greece, Italy, or France, they want to get to Great Britain, Canada, or America.

  • mdmusterstone

    Welcome back a6z, I can see we will all have to up our game
    so to speak.

    I perused Nail Ferguson’s book “War of the World”
    tonight. Insightful as usual, from what
    I read it appeared unlikely that the new immigrants to Europe will ever
    assimilate to the point that violence will ever be very unlikely as opposed to
    likely. It’s much too complex to explain
    here, and I haven’t had a chance to read that deeply at this point, but looking
    at “assimilation” in various parts of Europe
    prior to and during WWII some of the markers one would think were indicators of
    well assimilated groups were also the groups most given to tearing themselves
    apart ethnically.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service